Pages

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - Bill of Rights

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Preservation and Proposition

Our mission is to document the pivotal Second Amendment events that occurred in Frontier Mercersburg, and its environs, and to heighten awareness of the importance of these events in the founding of our Nation.

We are dedicated to the preservation of the place where the Second Amendment was "born" and to the proposition that the Second Amendment (the "right to bear arms") is the keystone of our Liberty and the Republic.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Over atBreitbart, Awr Hawkinssuggeststhat “the Second Amendment crushed gun control candidates in Senate and gubernatorial races around the country.” This is evidently true — or, at the very least, it is true that candidates who happened to be pro-gun won overwhelmingly. Whatever dreams the gun-control brigade had in the wake of the abomination at Newtown were dashed, it seems. Why? Well, because support for the right to keep and bear arms is not a political liability in the United States.
Hawkins records that:

Friday, October 24, 2014

Few of the anti-gun movement’s positions are as self-defeating and mean-spirited as the impulse to “out” others for the choices they make about their Second Amendment rights. Most of them try to justify prying into this private activity under the mismatched rubric of the “public’s right to know,” as if private individuals become public figures merely for the exercise of a fundamental right. In recent years, newspapers have published databases ofRight-to-Carryandpistol permit holders, feigning interest in “public safety.” Yet their true motivations were more candidly illustrated recently by the comments of D.C. Councilmembers at apublic hearing on D.C.’s new concealed carrying permitting law. “Who cares about the confidentiality of a gun owner? We don’t want it … ,” Councilwoman Yvette Alexander said, arguing to make permit holder information public. Fellow Council member David Grosso -- who also expressed his preference for “no guns at all” in the District -- concurred: “[A]t least we’ll all know who it is, and we can treat them differently ….”

And to court undecided voters who don’t like Obama, Udall has come up with a fairy tale where he insists that he’s the last person President Obama wants to see coming down the lawn of the White House. You know, because he’s always telling Obama “No.”

Monday, October 6, 2014

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ~2nd Amendment to the US ConstitutionNothing seems to evoke more passion from either side of the aisle than America’s illustrious 2nd amendment. People on my side of the fence often cite the “shall not be infringed part,” but those who wish to limit or eliminate the citizenry’s right to carry arms often cite the “a well-regulated militia” part.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies.

Monday, September 15, 2014

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

Sunday, September 14, 2014

By Alan Caruba When we celebrate the Fourth of July, let’s keep in mind that the first Americans won their independence from England with the force of arms. It was, in fact, a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.

The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that, after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their right to bear arms.

Wherever authoritarian regimes were established in the last century, they took away this right and then proceeded to kill those deemed enemies of the state.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

The United Nations turns 70 in 2015. Fox News is asking a selection of distinguished contributors occasionally to contribute their thoughts on what it has become, and how to shape its future.

As the United Nations starts to celebrate its 70th anniversary, it’s showing Americans the kind of openness it really believes in.

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a controversial effort that is highly sensitive in the U.S. due to Second Amendment concerns and worries about its impact on U.S. foreign policy, is nearing the fifty ratifications it needs to come into force, and all critics have been kicked out of the room.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

By Paul Berger - 9/8/2014Is the person next to you in shul packing heat?

If you live in a state with permissive gun laws, the answer might be yes.

Rabbi Anthony Fratello, of Temple Shaarei Shalom in Boynton Beach, Florida, said the only armed congregants he knows of work in law enforcement. But he would not be surprised if others carry a concealed weapon, too.

“Maybe I wouldn’t be so happy to know Chaim Yankel in the back row had got a gun,” Fratello said. “But I can’t do anything about that. I don’t frisk people when they come in the door.”

The High Holy Days are a time of heightened security. But this year, some American communities feel particularly vulnerable amid reports of rising anti-Semitism in Europe and heightened tension worldwide, including at home, following the war between Israel and Hamas.

Monday, September 8, 2014

There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth among physicians and medical societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), over the Florida law that forbids questioning patients about gun ownership. In late July, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that this was “legitimate regulation” of physicians’ conduct, intended to protect “patient privacy and curtail abuses of the physician-patient relationship.” Physicians who can see past the perceived insult to their autonomy would understand that this changes nothing about good care.

The number of concealed weapons permits in Orange County has about doubled since a court ruling six months ago

Orange County has been flooded with thousands of applications for concealed weapons permits this year

In the six months since Orange County began issuing concealed weapons permits under a relaxed standard, the number of people licensed to carry guns is close to doubling, and thousands more are awaiting approval.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

In covering the tragic story of a young girl accidentally killing her range instructor with an Uzi, my colleague Matt Vespa predicted that the anti-gun lobby would exploit this story to promote their agenda. It appears his prediction has been proven true. This past Thursday, Geraldo Rivera, a noted proponent of gun control, posted the following anti-Second Amendment message on his website and Facebook page: (emphasis added)

Like I always say, the 2nd Amendment, the provision that gives every American the right to keep and bear arms, is blind and stupid. In its relentless pimping for the gun industry, the NRA has unleashed an avalanche of deadly weapons on this gun-crazy country. Just as protects access to weapons for cops and hunters, it also protects access to weapons for domestic abusers, mental patients, jerk-offs on the no-fly list, all-around dim bulbs, and now little children.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Posted by NRA - 8/29/2014In recent years, American gun owners have come under unprecedented attacks from a few billionaires willing to spend some of their vast personal fortunes to deprive others of their firearm rights. The most recent example of this is in the battle over Initiative 594 in Washington State. This initiative would expand the state’s handgun registration scheme, increase the current waiting period from 5 to 10 days, presumptively outlaw the private transfer of firearms, and divert scarce law enforcement resources that could be better spent combating violent crime.

Joining the chief funder of anti-gun efforts, Michael Bloomberg, tech billionaires Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and Paul Allen, as well as entrepreneur Nick Hanauer have thrown their resources behind I-594. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported on August 25th that the Gates family has donated over $1 million in support of I-594. Earlier in the month, the Post-Intelligencer reported that the total contributions from the Ballmer family were $600,000. In addition, Allen donated $500,000. According to the article, with the help of these and other wealthy donors, the anti-gun activists have raised $6 million. (For an in-depth view of how the ultra-wealthy are bankrolling I-594 we encourage you to visit the website of Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission).

However, just because this handful of billionaires wants to make it harder for regular citizens to acquire the means of self-defense doesn’t mean they neglect to provide for their own security. A report from Seattle’s KIRO-TV regarding a 2014 break-in at the Gates’ mansion (often referred to as Xanadu 2.0) characterized the estate as, “[o]ne of the most secure private homes in the world.” An accompanying article stated, “The home has cameras, guards and sensors everywhere.” In 1998, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Gates “usually travels with a phalanx of bodyguards.”

Paul Allen also has an extensive and sophisticated security service. In a 2013 article detailing problems he, his sister and their company, Vulcan, Inc., were having with their personal security personnel, the Post-Intelligencer revealed details about the scale of the protective force. It notes, “At least 15 former members of the Allens’ personal security detail have brought civil claims against Vulcan and its leaders.” The article also states that some of the force were “veterans of elite military units or longtime security specialists.”

Hypocrisy aside, another reason Gates’ attempt to manipulate Washington politics is noteworthy is that it departs from his previous philanthropic ventures to fight disease or poverty or to promote education. Obviously, spending money to curtail your fellow citizens’ right to self-defense isn’t really philanthropic, but his donations to I-594 supporters are different in another way. The Microsoft founder claims to be a proponent of maximizing the impact of giving. This supposedly involves directing money where it can do the most good and encouraging philanthropic organizations to behave more like the business world. This is a noble approach to noble goals when applied to fighting polio or malaria, but Gates abandons logic when it comes to his anti-gun giving.

First, I-594 doesn’t pass a simple cost-benefit analysis. So-called "universal” background check proposals can never actually be universal, as criminals intent on violence will not subject themselves to government scrutiny. Instead, violent criminals will continue to acquire firearms in the ways they always have: theft, straw purchasers, and illegal street sales. No effect on the murder rate can be expected.

Moreover, recent history proves that the anti-gun activists these billionaires have funded are grossly overestimating the extent to which people engage in private firearm transfers, and therefore the impact of legislation targeting these transfers. Their website is littered with the indefensible claim that private transfers account for 40 percent of all firearm transfers.

In the time period surrounding the enactment of a private transfer ban in Colorado, a branch of the state legislature released a report which anticipated that law enforcement personnel would need to conduct 420,000 additional background checks in the law’s first two years. The legislature reached this conclusion by relying on the bogus 40 percent statistic. As an Associated Press report noted, however, in the law’s first year there were only “13,600 checks between private sellers,” a figure that only comprised “4 percent of the state total” for firearms transfers.

In short, I-594 would impose costs on law-abiding Washingtonians without providing the purported benefit of keeping firearms out of the hands of those intent on violence.

These individuals can buy almost anything, and it’s clear they believe that includes the rights of gun owners in the Evergreen State. It is imperative that freedom-loving Washingtonians work to protect their rights by getting involved in the NRA’s grassroots organization, informing their friends and family of this attempt to curb gun rights and the hypocrisy behind it, and most of all, by voting against I-594 on November 4th.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Some basic AR-15s were running more than $1,500 during the post-Sandy Hook panic. Carbines with similar features can now be found for roughly half that price in many locations.

Business is a matter of supply and demand.

In recent years, the demand for the AR-15 modern sporting rifle has been at an all-time high, and manufacturers struggled to add multiple shifts and new equipment to meet that demand. It was a seller’s market.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

A federal judge in Baton Rouge ruled a Baton Rouge city ordinance banning possession of firearms in places that sell alcohol, including in the parking lots of those establishments, was unconstitutional.

Chief U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson, in an order issued Monday (Aug. 25), struck down the city ordinance that was successfully challenged by a plaintiff who was arrested in 2012 after Baton Rouge Police Department officers pulled him over, searched his car and arrested him for violating the ordinance.

The plaintiff, Ernest Taylor, says that around 1:30 a.m. Oct. 13, 2012, he was pulled over for a traffic stop after exiting Romeo's Lounge parking lot. After telling the officer he had two rifles in his car along with the proper permits, the officer forcibly retrained him on the hood a car before arresting him.

Monday, August 25, 2014

What is the alternative to the rule of law? We may be on the verge of re-learning that ancient lesson the hard way. Of course, those of us who is served in places where there was no law, where leftists and other aspiring totalitarians ignored the rules and norms of civil society, already know.

The alternative to the rule of law is the rule of power. And the rule of power is always the rule of men with guns.

The disgraceful indictment of Rick Perry in Texas is just the latest example of this trend, albeit one that carries the seeds of hope. The judicial lynching under way in Ferguson offers less reason for optimism – our disgrace of an Attorney General and that clown masquerading as Missouri’s governor are practically salivating at the idea of sacrificing the police officer on the altar of indignation, facts and law be damned.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Family members, gun rights advocates are questioning how a young father was quickly shot and killed by police at Ohio Walmart after a complaint was made that he was carrying and waving around a firearm.

John Crawford III, 22, was fatally shot by law enforcement inside a Beavercreek, Ohio Walmart on Aug. 5 within minutes of a 911 call from a fellow Walmart shopper. The caller told a 911 operator, who was relaying the information to the Beavercreek Police Department that a man meeting Crawford’s description was walking around with a gun in the store – pointing it at people.

“He’s waving it around,” said the 911 caller. “It looks like a rifle, it looks like he was loading it, I don’t know.” Immediately thereafter, the caller reports gun shots in the store and police on the scene.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

By Robert B. Young - 8/7/2014 A doctor defended himself and others from a violent patient, but he had to break a no-gun policy to do so.

"More might have died if doctor had not shot gunman” — so read the headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 27. On the previous Thursday, a patient, Richard Plotts, entered the office of his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman, M.D., with his caseworker, Theresa Hunt. Plotts then became very upset and killed Hunt with two shots to her head. While this was happening, Dr. Silverman tried to take cover, drew his handgun, and shot the attacker three times. The doctor suffered slight wounds from bullets that grazed his head and hit his thumb. Staffers then succeeded in subduing the wounded Plotts. He was hospitalized in critical condition and now faces murder charges.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

By Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times - 7/16/2014
Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies than it did last year, and Police Chief James Craig is crediting armed citizens for the drop.

"Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon," said Chief Craig, who has been an open advocate for private gun ownership, the Detroit News reported. "I don't want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.

Friday, August 15, 2014

A federal judge rules that the AR-15 and similar weapons commonly used in self-defense "fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms," and we have no right to keep or bear them.

Nobody looted the gun shop and tattoo parlor that share a storefront in a strip mall less than 10 minutes from Ferguson, Mo., where riots followed the police shooting of Michael Brown.
According to the local Riverfront Times, the owners of County Guns and Tattoo Studio arrived with friends to protect their businesses. One owner carried a rifle and pistol and wore a vest, while the other had his own rifle.

Monday, August 11, 2014

With her cropped silver hair, white orthopedic slip-on shoes and a silver cross and a Virgin Mary pendant around her neck, you'd never suspect that Pat Bagley is packing heat.

But nestled in a zippered pocket of her black leather purse, Bagley's matte-black Ruger .38 pistol goes with her almost everywhere. It's loaded with a five-cartridge clip of hollow-point bullets, the ones capable of tearing huge chunks out of whatever they hit, especially flesh.

"If I need more than that, I figure I'm already dead. But those things will tear you up," says Bagley, almost 70 years old, a retired nurse, grandmother of four and known to nearly everyone as "Miss Pat."

Friday, August 8, 2014

It's not just macho Bible thumpers who treasure their Second Amendment rights.

By Marin Cogan - 8/6/2014
Four years ago, Chris Cheng's Chinese-Japanese-Cuban-American Google employee' started watching Top Shot, a History Channel reality show where contestants shoot their way through a series of complex competitions. Cheng, who as a kid had sometimes gone shooting with his Navy veteran father, started getting into the show.

One day, while watching season two with some of his Google coworkers, Cheng told them: "Hey, everyone, this is gonna sound crazy, but I think I'm going to apply for Top Shot." He remembers his colleagues thinking he was nuts. "They looked at me like, 'You barely shoot, you don't have any accolades or trophies or awards or anything in the shooting world. What makes you think you'd even stand a chance with some of these lifelong, seasoned professional marksmen?' "

But Cheng had a sense of what he could do. He'd been going to the range and hitting his marks; the best way to put his skills to the test, he figured, was to sign up and try out. He got in. Then he beat out veterans, police officers, and an Olympic shooter en route to winning that season's competition. The first thing he did after his victory was take some of the $100,000 prize money and upgrade his National Rifle Association membership to lifetime status.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Despite being victimized by a stalker, Taylor Woolrich was told by Dartmouth officials that she was not allowed to carry a gun on campus after inquiring about a concealed carry permit.

A 20-year-old Dartmouth student says she may have to give up her Ivy League dream and drop out of school because the prestigious college won't allow her to carry a gun -- to protect herself against a predator.

Taylor Woolrich, a junior, says Dartmouth administrators told her they won’t let her carry a gun on campus, even though she lives in fear of a man who has been stalking her since she was a high school student in San Diego.

Responding to an explosion in violent crime in Harnett County, North Carolina, Sheriff Larry Rollins told about 130 residents at a community meeting on Monday that they need to “be able to take care of business” until police arrive.

To put it bluntly, Rollins wants his residents to be armed and ready to protect themselves and their families.

“I do not go anywhere without a gun,” the sheriff told residents at Spring Hill Methodist Church in Lillington, North Carolina, on Monday.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Sporting a cover image of a blue-eyed family with guns clipped to their belts, a new American children's picture book is setting itself out as the solution for all those parents who "carry a gun and sometimes struggle with how to best explain the reasons" to their children.

My Parents Open Carry, by Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew, co-founders of the pro-gun Michigan Open Carry, has been released by small US publisher White Feather Press. The picture-book fellows a "typical Saturday running errands and having fun together" for 13-year-old Brenna Strong and her parents, say the authors. "What's not so typical is that Brenna's parents lawfully open carry handguns for self-defense."

“The law should be kept the way it is,” said Rep. Timothy O. Horrigan (D.-Durham) in response to a Republican proposal to add “firearms” to an existing list of prohibitions for welfare recipients.

Horrigan said Republicans in the state legislature unjustly decided to go further than a 2013 federal mandate that prohibits strip clubs and liquor stores – to include firearms. Smoking and alcohol is already prohibited. Most recipients of welfare are very poor and a lot of them are disabled, he said.
“Public assistance recipients who are accepted for cash benefits should be free to decide how to use it – they cannot afford to buy much of anything.” Cash benefits, which is different than food stamps, is an extremely small amount of money and is mostly spent on rent not luxuries, he said.

Ryan and Brenda are the reason that two indoor shooting ranges are under construction in the Pikes Peak region, and an outdoor range will open next month -- demographically speaking, that is.
Ryan, who asked that the couple's last name not be used, remembers a news story a few years ago about home invasion robbers breaking through front doors. Ryan, who grew up around guns, wanted his wife to learn to use firearms for self-defense.

They frequent Whistling Pines Gun Club, on the east edge of Colorado Springs, where Ryan is a member. They enjoy shooting as a sport and bring a .22 pistol to the range to "plink" at targets for fun. But they come mainly for self-defense and practice so they can be proficient in the use of the pistols they carry -- Ryan's 40-caliber Smith and Wesson and Brenda's 9 mm.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Liberals often misunderstand those who stand strongly in support of the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Often, that is because defenders of gun rights argue in the context of self-defense against violent criminals–a legitimate use of legal firearms, of course, but not the primary reason the Framers put forth for protecting gun rights.

Retired neurosurgeon and best-selling author Dr. Ben Carson explained the reason for the Second Amendment recently at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, as reported by CSN News.
The authors of the Constitution wrote it in the context of the American Revolution–a war fought against Great Britain for individual liberty and against government tyranny. Thus, the Second Amendment protections, Dr. Carson says.

“We have a Constitution that puts the district under the administrative and legislative authority of Congress,” said Richard A. “Dick” Heller, a special police officer in Washington, where he provides security at federal office buildings. Heller was an armed guard at the Supreme Court, forced to turn in his handgun at the end of his shift, when he filed his lawsuit.

ACCOKEEK, Md. (AP) — Beretta U.S.A. announced Tuesday that company concerns over a strict gun-control law enacted in Maryland last year have made it necessary to move its weapons making out of the state to Tennessee.
The well-known gun maker said it will move to a new production facility it is building in the Nashville suburb of Gallatin that is set to open in mid-2015.

Beretta general manager Jeff Cooper said that a sweeping gun-control measure that was passed last year initially contained provisions that would have prohibited the Italian gun maker from being able to produce, store or even import into Maryland the products that the company sells around the world. While the legislation was changed to remove some of those provisions, Cooper said the possibility that such restrictions could be reinstated left the company worried about maintaining a firearm-making factory in Maryland.

...Let Them Take Arms

The "Right to Bear Arms" . . .or 2nd Amendment is one of the most discussed and contentious of all the amendments of the Bill of Rights. It is, in fact, the only amendment that contains not only the seeds but the actual instruments of the revolution itself. Further, it gives real affirmation to Thomas Jefferson's quote . . .

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

It is for this reason, if no other, that the Government and its functionaries vociferously assail and obfuscate the text of this simple assertion. More, it is for this reason, and in the face of the perennial onslaught that its defense and affirmation is essential to the survival of the republic.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) attached an amendment to a bill providing funding to the District of Columbia that would prohibit the District from expending any funds to enforce certain gun control laws. The amendment passed 241-181. The amendment blocks enforcement of the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008, the Inoperable Pistol Amendment Act of 2008, the Firearms Amendment Act of 2012, and the Administrative Disposition of Weapons Act of 2012.

She took a gun safety course, applied for and was granted a concealed carry permit and she purchased a gun.

“One of my family members, he thought it was appropriate for me to get one because I’m a single mother and I have two children and I work two jobs and I work late and getting up at that time of night I got robbed twice last year and he felt the need for me to get my license to protect me and my kids,” Allen explained.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Interpreting the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment, as a living document — through the filter of the present day. . .

Reviewed by David L. Ulin - 7/10/2014

The 2nd Amendment is just 27 words long: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

But in that single, awkwardly constructed sentence, Michael Waldman suggests in “The Second Amendment: A Biography”, the essence of the United States may be revealed.

“A living Constitution,” Waldman writes, “does not discard the spirit of the document, but seeks to apply its timeless principles to modern challenges that could not have been imagined by the Framers or their contemporaries. It reflects with frankness that our sense of human dignity has, in fact, evolved.”

These notions of dignity and evolution motivate “The Second Amendment”, which offers a smart if occasionally frustrating historical overview of America’s 200-plus year relationship with guns.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

A new study finds that an increase in concealed carry permits has accompanied a decrease in murder.

A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.

The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.

Tuesday, July 8, 2014

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie explained his logic in vetoing a bill last week that would have limited the size of gun magazines, saying that “every life is valuable.”

“Are we saying that the 10 children on the clip they advocate for, that their lives are less valuable?” he said at an event Monday, according to a video posted on his Youtube page. “If you take the logical conclusion of their argument, you go to zero because every life is valuable. And so why 10? Why not six, six? Why not two? Why not one? Why not zero?

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Americans are in a period of amazingly negative thinking about the state of
our country.

A recent Gallup
analysis drove home how deep and how threatening the current mood is.

Gallup asked Americans in early June how much confidence they had in our
nation's institutions. The answer: not much. Only 30% had "a great deal" or
"quite a lot of confidence" in the Supreme Court. Just 29% felt that way about
the presidency. And an abysmal 7% had faith in the Congress.

Think about what this means. Our most trusted national institution, the
unelected Supreme Court, has the confidence of almost (but not quite) one out of
every three Americans. The presidency is slightly weaker and the Congress
collapses to fewer than 1 in 10 Americans.

History books are written by the winners and, if we’re successful at protecting the right to keep and bear arms for future generations, the civil rights chapters of the history books that future generations will read will tell the story of Otis McDonald.

The longtime Chicago resident, who passed away in April, was the lead plaintiff in McDonald v. City of Chicago, one of the most important Second Amendment cases ever decided by the Supreme Court. McDonald, born to Louisiana sharecroppers in 1933, was an Army veteran, a father of eight and a grandfather. He didn’t finish high school, but he worked hard, earned a college degree and retired after a 32-year career at the University of Chicago.

As an African-American climbing the professional ladder in the University’s building engineering department, he learned the value of perseverance. That lesson paid dividends in McDonald’s legal battle against the Chicago political machine’s decades-long suppression of the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear handguns for protection. McDonald filed his challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban in 2008, after the Supreme Court issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the District’s handgun ban and its ban on having a firearm assembled into functional condition within the home.

Retail giant Target announced Wednesday that it is asking people not to bring firearms into its stores, even when those stores are located in towns that allow “open carry.”

“Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so,” interim Target CEO John Mulligan said.
“But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target — even in communities where it is permitted by law,” he said.
Mulligan said Target has spent considerable time weighing this “complex issue,” but said the chain wants to “create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.
“This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.”

Target’s decision came after weeks of pressure from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a mothers group that has pushed other stores to enact similar policies. The same group pressured Chipotle, Starbucks and other stores to ask customers not to bring weapons onto store premises.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

The Chicago city council, under the gun from a court order, approved Mayor Rahm Emanuel's plan to allow gun dealers in the city in a 48-0 vote Wednesday.
The plan has strict limits on dealers that the mayor described as the stiffest he believes would pass muster with the courts. A judge recently overturned Chicago's ban on gun sales. Handgun sales would be subject to a 72-hour waiting period and limits of no more than one per month to a customer, while buyers of rifles and shotguns would have to wait 24 hours.

Emanuel called the bill a "smart, tough and enforceable ordinance."

Dealers would also be subjected to zoning restrictions and would have to be at least 500 feet from schools and parks. Emanuel's office estimates they would be able to open in areas that make up less than 1 percent of Chicago.

The city is known for gun violence. Critics say its restrictions on weapons sales do little since most guns that are seized in the city were purchased elsewhere, often in southern Illinois.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Critics of the 2nd Amendment conclude that since the Founders couldn't have anticipated multi-shot weapons (in the time of single shot firearms) the 2nd Amendment should be null and void. Accepting that logic one would conclude that the 1st Amendment (the right of free speech) should be null and void with the invention of the telephone, fax, and any other form of multiple/electronic speech.

Monday, June 9, 2014

After the [atrocity|evil] that occurred in Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, the 2nd amendment and gun control debates flamed up anew. People were [scared|terrified]. Gun control activists [pounced on|used] the tragedy as a platform to further their views against gun ownership. Gun owners responded by saying that had the teachers and staff been armed or had there been an armed guard, people would not have died. I’m sure you’ve heard a lot about why guns are evil and why people shouldn’t be allowed to carry them. Here, I give you five reasons why I support the 2nd amendment and why we actually need more guns.

• To uphold the2nd amendment
What is our second amendment about? According to our nation’s Founders, it is being able “to keep and bear arms” without this right being “infringed”. According to them, this is “necessary to the security of a free state”. Our 2nd amendment gun rights simply mean that our Founders knew that we, the people, are our own first line of defense against any person, group, or force trying to take our property, liberty, or life. Owning a gun doesn’t mean that you intend to cause harm to another. A gun, like any other tool you own (cellphone, hammer, can opener, etc.), is simply something you keep for the event that you will need it. Guns aren’t inherently evil. The source of evil is the person who intends to use his or her gun to inflict harm.

• To protect the innocent and the defenseless
I support the 2nd amendment because I believe in protecting those who can’t protect themselves. I support the 2nd amendment because I know that by educating myself on gun use and gun safety, I can contribute to “the security of a free state”. There are many different and contrasting explanations for our 2nd amendment rights, but this much I know is true: I would sleep better knowing that I have a shotgun I can use in the event that an armed criminal breaks into my family’s house in the middle of the night.

• To defend ourselves from crime
[Whenever|Any time] gun control advocates start [spewing hate about|criticizing] the idea of using guns for self-defense, I start thinking about Switzerland. Switzerland has a very low rate of gun-related violence. There, the government hands out guns to households so they can better protect themselves. Meanwhile, countries with [stringent|strict] gun rules likethe UK have high crime rates.

• To [tone down|reduce] the paranoia
People are scared because so many criminals and psychopaths are able to [procure|get hold of] guns illegally. The solution to this is to allow honest, responsible people to own and use guns legally.
With all the [heated talk|debate] about the 2nd amendment and gun control, people seem to have forgotten one [crucialimportant] thing. In America, we have a choice. We can choose to protect ourselves or we can choose not to. If you choose not to arm yourself, that’s fine. But if your neighbor chooses to protect himself in the event that he finds himself in a violent situation, let him. You may not think that the world is a dangerous and unpredictable place, but many still do.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

The issues surrounding the right to bear arms are many and varied. Most often the debate centers around the lethality of modern firearms, especially “assault weapons” that can fire rapidly with large magazines. Yet one element of the debate frequently referenced obliquely in the mainstream media concerns the actual intent and function of the Second Amendment. Some progressive groups have been endeavoring to turn the originalist position against itself, so to speak. Their arguments are often baffling to those unprepared for them, but they are easily beaten with a little preparation.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

US Senator Flubs Basic American History

By NRA-ILA - 6/6/2014

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), sponsor of the Brady Bill and the “assault weapon” and “large” magazine ban when he was in the House of Representatives, probably shouldn’t be the go-to guy for historical arguments against the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Washington Times reports that Schumer said on Tuesday Thomas Jefferson was the architect of the Bill of Rights. As the Times notes, Jefferson was overseas serving as minister to France during the Constitutional convention and the congressional debate over the Bill of Rights.

Schumer can perhaps console himself that both Jefferson and a pivotal author and champion of the Bill of Rights, James Madison, had a lot in common.

(Sen. Schumer, take notes.) Jefferson and Madison were both from Virginia. Both later became president of the United States. And both supported the right to arms.

But there are some important differences, too. For example, Jefferson wrotethe Declaration of Independence. Madison, on the other hand, argued for ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist, commonly referred to as The Federalist Papers.

In The Federalist, Number 46, for example, Madison said that under the Constitution, the people would retain the right to keep and bear arms for defense against tyranny.

For that matter, Alexander Hamilton, from Schumer’s home state, also endorsed an armed citizenry for the same reason in The Federalist, Number 29.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

The 2nd Amendment is just 27 words long: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." But in that single, awkwardly constructed sentence, Michael Waldman suggests in "The Second Amendment: A Biography," the essence of the United States may be revealed.

"A living Constitution," Waldman writes, "does not discard the spirit of the document, but seeks to apply its timeless principles to modern challenges that could not have been imagined by the Framers or their contemporaries. It reflects with frankness that our sense of human dignity has, in fact, evolved."

These notions of dignity and evolution motivate "The Second Amendment," which offers a smart if occasionally frustrating historical overview of America's 200-plus year relationship with guns.

Guns represent a microcosm of an America divided between left and right, urban and rural, collective and individual rights.-

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

By Boston Herald (MA) - 5/20/2014

Tough-talking Bay State lawmen are slamming a possible move by the Obama administration they say would "water down" a controversial crackdown on illegal immigrants, and they're accusing the White House of trying to score political points during an election year.

"This program would absolutely be efficient if the Obama administration hadn't been trying to find ways to break it down," said Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, a Republican who's backed the use of the so-called Secure Communities program.

Secure Communities allows the Department of Homeland Security to match fingerprints of suspects charged with local or state crimes with their immigration database, detain them if they're in the country illegally and potentially deport them.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Washington, D.C. is the only place in the country where no one is allowed to legally carry a gun outside the home.
District residents are trying to challenge the law in court, but the justice system has denied them due process. The almost five-year delay in Palmer v. District of Columbia is so extreme that some suspect political games.

In August 2009, Tom Palmer and three other D.C. residents filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that said the total ban on carrying firearms -- open or concealed -- violated their Second Amendment rights.

On Tuesday, Alan Gura, the attorney for the Palmer case, filed a second writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals asking it to force the lower court to issue a decision.

He will not speculate on the reason for the long wait, but says this is not normal.

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?
That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was the case than all of the Americans who have suffered from PTSD following the loss of a loved one or from being in a car accident would also have to be disqualified from owning firearms. It would also mean that everyone who has ever been depressed for any reason should be disarmed. In fact, many of the veterans being deprived of their rights have no idea why it is happening.

The answer seems to be it is simply because they are veterans. At the USJF we intend to find the truth by filing a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Veterans Affairs to force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Then we will take whatever legal steps are necessary to protect our American warriors.

The reality is that Obama will not get all of the gun control measures he wants through Congress, and they wouldn’t be enough for him anyway. He wants a totally disarmed America so there will be no resistance to his plans to rob us of our nation. That means we have to ask who will be next. If you are receiving a Social Security check will you get one of these letters? Will the government declare that you are incompetent because of your age and therefore banned from firearm ownership. It certainly fits in with the philosophy and plans of the Obama administration. It is also certain that our military veterans don’t deserve this and neither do any other Americans.

Save the Birthplace of Our Gun Rights - Donate Here

It All Started Here . . .

Frontier Mercersburg in 1765 was the "birthplace" of the right we now refer to as "the Second Amendment", or, "the right to bear arms". It was here that individuals for the first time, some would say divinely, embraced the link between "Life and Liberty". . . and struck the first blow for Freedom.

Historically the right to bear arms goes back even before our founding as a nation to the Glorious Revolution of 1689 when William III agreed to the English Bill of Rights. If one can look at revolution like a volcanic eruption in nature, you understand that often from the destruction come the seeds of new human values and beliefs. In this case the independence of the human spirit, the right to know God for oneself, and to trust your conscience was hard won in this revolution of the human soul.

One crucible begets the necessity for another and on the frontier in America the right to defend ones religious beliefs was becoming the right to participate in the decisions of government that impact my "self". Freedom of the soul was becoming freedom of the heart and mind. Smith's Rebellion began as an act they justified under the rubric of defending oneself because government had failed in its obligation to protect Life, Liberty and Property. This was the first assertion of this principle aimed directly at British Military Authority as well as the incompetent government of John Penn - anywhere in the colonies.

In the end, Smith's Rebellion was the first armed resistance against British Military Rule leading up to the American Revolution. It was the first American triumph over the best military force in the world. It was the first time upon defending oneself that Americans had proclaimed we can rule ourselves.

It would be ten years before the battles at Lexington and Concord.

...Let Them Take Arms

The "Right to Bear Arms" . . .or 2nd Amendment is one of the most discussed and contentious of all the amendments of the Bill of Rights. It is, in fact, the only amendment that contains not only the seeds but the actual instruments of the revolution itself. Further, it gives real affirmation to Thomas Jefferson's quote . . .

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

It is for this reason, if no other, that the Government and its functionaries vociferously assail and obfuscate the text of this simple assertion. More, it is for this reason, and in the face of the perennial onslaught that its defense and affirmation is essential to the survival of the republic.

Frontier Mercersburg & The Justice William Smith House

The frontier town of Mercersburg, PA. in the 1760's, although typical of many settlements along the Appalachian Mountains played a pivotal role in the creation of what was to become the "Bill of Rights".

Frontiersmen like James Smith and the Black Boys, many of whom were inhabitants of the Mercersburg environs, were early participants in a series of conflicts with the British government that established principles the eventually lead to the inclusion of the "right to bear arms" in the Bill of Rights.

Much of the focus, centers on the domicile (and likely place of business) of Justice William Smith.